After experiencing some good chiropractic work but some bad insurance billing at a Valencia Street chiropractic office, a local San Francisco resident decided to venture onto Yelp and share his experiences. This is nothing remarkable in and of itself, as that is what Yelp is designed for, and that’s what users do. The story takes a turn, however, when the chiropractor sees the negative review and decides to file a lawsuit for libel and invasion of privacy.

Now that the case has garnered attention from local media people are starting to think about review sites and the limits of free speech associated with them. The chiropractor in question has claimed that he’s not looking for publicity, and that he tried for over a year to settle the dispute amicably. He is quoted as saying “I am a proponent of free speech, but at the same time, individuals have a responsibility when they publish something as to the accuracy of it.”

In his original review the Yelper wrote, “I don’t think good business means charging people whatever you feel like hoping they’ll pay without a fuss.” Which, in turn caused the chiropractor to contact the Yelper saying that he was “saddened” by the review and would he reconsider or remove the review. The chiropractor maintains that he did not do anything unethical or illegal throughout the dealings.

At the heart of the matter is the issue of the Internet and expression of negative sentiments. Beyond that, it calls into question the entire viability of an industry of sites like Yelp and eBay that utilize such technology in their businesses. It is worth noting in this instance that Yelp – under the federal Communications Decency Act – is not responsible for the content it publishes.

The case has invited many prominent legal minds to weigh in, like Aaron Morris, a partner with Morris & Stone LLP in Orange County who is not involved in the case. “Sites that are seemingly well intended are turning into wastelands of defamatory and unspecified allegations. There needs to be some sort of blowback against unfettered speech. People should be able to go on and say, ‘That’s not a true statement about me, and I need to be able to attack this.’ ”

The chiropractor claims, through his attorney Eric Nordskog of San Francisco, that the review hurt his business. “Although negative reviews are fine, there are certain statements that are false statements of fact,” he said. “He accuses [my client] of dishonesty and of committing insurance fraud, which is a crime in California.”

For his part, the Yelper’s attorney, Michael Blacksburg, called the reviews “opinion statements” and said that the chiropractor’s business fell off after he filed the lawsuit because the number of referrals he got from Yelp dropped.

“Customers who use Yelp don’t want to be another potential lawsuit defendant if they choose to write a negative review,” Blacksburg said. “It has nothing to do with who’s right or wrong – they’re going to go with the chiropractor who chooses not to sue.”

The Yelper, now mired in legal costs, is seeking assistance from The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a local nonprofit that supports free speech online. An attorney with The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Matt Zimmerman, pointed out that the chiropractor would likely get far more negative publicity from filing the lawsuit than from a bad review on Yelp. He added that the foundation has seen an increase in the number of cases where people were trying to use the courts because of postings on the Internet.

“When people try to pull down unflattering material, it has the absolute opposite effect” of what they intend, he said. “It’s very difficult to silence speakers on the Internet – it’s a culture of people who don’t like those kinds of attempts.”

A spokeswoman for Yelp, Stephanie Ichinose, agreed. “Suing one of his patients over a single review (in light of the many positive reviews that he receives on our site) might end up tarnishing [the chiropractor's] reputation rather than enhancing it, not to mention the costs associated with litigation,” she said in an e-mail.